Patent Cases

Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

· IPR2025-00291

Google and other U.S. carriers have filed a petition for Director Review, challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for IPR2025-00291 concerning patent 10,594,460. They argue the Board misapplied Fintiv factors, retroactively changed policy, and violated due process. The petition seeks to have the denial vacated and the IPR instituted.

patent denied · Dec 27, 2024

Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.

· IPR2025-00287

Biofrontera has filed a rehearing request challenging the Board’s denial to institute an IPR on Sun Pharmaceutical’s photodynamic therapy patent, arguing the claims are highly vulnerable and that institution would prevent inconsistent rulings.

Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.

· IPR2025-00287

The USPTO denied Biofrontera's request for rehearing of the decision that refused to institute its IPR against Sun Pharmaceutical's patent 11,446,512. The Board affirmed the discretionary denial, leaving the patent unchallenged.

patent denied · Dec 27, 2024

Google LLC et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC

· IPR2025-00025

The PTAB denied Samsung's petition for inter partes review of Truesight's '803 patent covering kiosk‑based media distribution. The Board applied the Fintiv discretionary factors and concluded that denying institution best served efficiency given the parallel district‑court litigation.

patent denied · Dec 27, 2024

Google LLC et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC

· IPR2025-00025

Samsung’s petition to invalidate Truesight’s virtual SD‑card patent was denied by the PTAB, which exercised its discretion under § 314(a) after weighing the six Fintiv factors and finding the parallel district‑court litigation outweighed the petition’s merits.

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.

· PGR2025-00009

Merck has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,123,035 covering PH20 hyaluronidase mutants. The petition asserts lack of written description, lack of enablement, and obviousness of the claims. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the trial.

Full-Metal-Power B.V. v.InFocus Downhole Solutions USA LLC

· IPR2025-00391

Full-Metal-Power B.V. has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Infocus Downhole Solutions' 2020 patent on downhole progressive cavity tools, asserting obviousness over multiple foreign and U.S. references.

Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

· IPR2025-00291

Google and its affiliates have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all twelve claims of Pegasus Wireless Innovation's 5G frequency‑hopping patent, arguing that the claims are obvious or anticipated over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues the Board should not deny the filing under discretionary statutes.

Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.

· IPR2025-00287

Biofrontera has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate eight claims of Sun Pharma’s photodynamic‑therapy device patent, arguing obviousness over Lundahl, Larsen, Hente and Perutz. The petition argues the prior art was not previously considered and that the Board should not deny the petition under §325(d) or Fintiv.

Full-Metal-Power B.V. v.InFocus Downhole Solutions USA LLC

· IPR2025-00391

Full-Metal-Power B.V. filed a corrected exhibit set for its IPR challenge to InFocus Downhole Solutions' U.S. Patent 10,676,992, addressing labeling errors.

patent instituted · Dec 27, 2024

Google LLC et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC

· IPR2025-00025

Google and Samsung have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑19 of Truesight’s ‘879 patent covering V‑chip‑based parental controls. The petition alleges obviousness over prior art references Sullivan, Leung, and Craner and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.

· PGR2025-00009

The PTAB instituted the PGR petition challenging Halozyme's patent covering modified PH20 polypeptides. The Board found that the claims were not sufficiently supported by the specification regarding enablement and obviousness, despite Petitioner's arguments about the genus size.

patent LITIGATION · Dec 26, 2024

Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, and Advanced Bionics Sarl v.MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-001073

This case concerns a revocation action and counterclaims for revocation of European Patent EP 4 074 373, titled 'MRI-SAFE DISK MAGNET FOR IMPLANTS,' owned by MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH. Advanced Bionics AG filed the revocation action, while Advanced Bionics GmbH and Advanced Bionics Sarl filed counterclaims for revocation, challenging the patent on grounds of added subject matter, lack of inventive step, and insufficiency of disclosure. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris Seat) rejected the revocation action and counterclaims, maintaining the patent as amended according to Auxiliary Request 0a, with costs allocated 70% to the Claimants/Counterclaimants and 30% to the Defendant.

Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC

The PTAB denied Phison Electronics' petition to institute a post‑grant review of Vervain’s NAND‑flash storage patent. The Board concluded Phison failed to show any claim was more likely than not unpatentable under §§ 101, 112, 103. No trial was instituted.

Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC

The PTAB denied Phison Electronics’ petition for post‑grant review of Vervain’s NAND‑flash patent, finding no sufficient evidence that claims 1‑6 are unpatentable.

Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC

Phison Electronics files a PGR petition to invalidate Vervain’s 11,830,546 NAND‑flash memory patent, asserting abstractness, lack of written description, indefiniteness and obviousness. The petition leans on an expert declaration and extensive prior‑art citations.

Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC

Micron (on behalf of Phison) petitions the PTAB to invalidate 12 claims of Vervain’s 10,950,300 flash‑memory patent, arguing they are obvious over Dusija and Sutardja. The petition also argues against discretionary denial under § 314(a).

Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

The PTAB denied the petitioners' request for Director Review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case covering patent 10,721,118 owned by Pegasus Wireless Innovation.

Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

Google and other carriers’ request for director review of the PTAB’s denial of institution in a wireless patent case was rejected for lacking a valid basis and introducing new arguments.

Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

Google and other carriers filed a Request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against patent 10,721,118. They contend the Board abused discretion, misapplied Fintiv factors, and retroactively changed policy, seeking a review of the denial.

Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC

Phison Electronics Corp. has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of ten claims of Vervain’s ‘369 NAND‑flash patent, alleging abstractness, lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over prior art.

Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC